CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 1940

President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Janowitz

The court amended its previous decision from July 2, 1940, concerning the will of Julius Janowitz. The interlocutory decree was significantly modified by striking several original paragraphs and adding a new decretal paragraph. This new addition declared Article Third of Julius Janowitz's will as invalid, unlawful, and ineffective for transferring real and personal property to the plaintiff and its co-trustee. As thus modified, the interlocutory decree was affirmed, with costs awarded to the defendant-appellant Emma S. Janowitz against the plaintiff-respondent. Justice Johnston authored the opinion, with Justices Lazansky, Hagarty, and Carswell concurring, while Justice Close dissented.

Will ContestInterlocutory DecreeDecree ModificationProperty TransferEstate LawAppellate DecisionArticle InvalidityTrust AgreementCosts AwardedJudicial Opinion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Briley

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John B. Ex Rel. L.A. v. Goetz

This memorandum addresses the Defendants' motion to vacate a Consent Decree concerning the provision of medical services to over 500,000 Medicaid-eligible children in Tennessee. The Plaintiffs, John B. and other minors, had previously filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the state failed to provide Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services under the Medicaid Act. Defendants sought to vacate or modify the Consent Decree, citing new legal developments from Westside Mothers II and Brown v. Tennessee Dept. of Finance & Admin. The Court acknowledges these cases but ultimately denies the Defendants' motion to vacate and their alternate argument for modification, finding that the Consent Decree's provisions for outreach services and mandated medical assistance remain enforceable under federal law. The memorandum details the state's historical non-compliance and the ongoing necessity of the decree to ensure children receive essential healthcare.

Medicaid ActEPSDT servicesChildren's healthcareConsent DecreeState waiver programFederal fundingOutreach servicesMedical assistanceCompliance issuesManaged Care Organizations
References
28
Case No. 2015-01-0006
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2015

Langford, Jordan v. Cleveland Tent & Party Rentals

Jordan Langford sought an interlocutory order for medical and temporary disability benefits after sustaining multiple injuries in a work-related truck accident on October 13, 2014. The employer, Scott Rymer, d/b/a Cleveland Tent and Party Rentals/Party Time Rentals, was uninsured and disputed the claim, asserting Mr. Langford was an independent contractor and the injury occurred during a deviation from business. However, the Court found that Rymer employed more than five individuals, making it subject to workers' compensation law, and that Mr. Langford was an employee acting within the scope of his employment. Consequently, the Court granted the interlocutory order, entitling Mr. Langford to medical treatment, including care from Dr. Brett Sanders for his fractured ankle, and temporary disability benefits for the period from October 14, 2014, to April 1, 2015.

expedited hearinginterlocutory ordermedical benefitstemporary disabilityemployee statusindependent contractorscope of employmentautomobile accidentankle fracturesurgery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.J. Gallagher Co.

Michael Boyle, former president of R.J. Gallagher Company, was demoted to vice-president after a cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy. He and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued, alleging age and disability discrimination, denial of medical leave, and retaliation. The company counter-sued Boyle for breach of contract. The court found no statutory violations by the company regarding discrimination, medical leave, or retaliation. Additionally, an initial interlocutory judgment that found the company breached Boyle's employment contract was rescinded. The court concluded that Boyle's claims failed because his demotion was due to company performance, he was not replaced by substantially younger individuals, he was not disabled under the relevant acts, and he was not denied medical leave. The company's counter-suit was deemed not retaliatory. As a result, all claims by Boyle and the EEOC were denied, and the interlocutory decision on Gallagher's liability was reversed.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationMedical LeaveBreach of ContractRetaliationConstructive DischargeLeukemiaEmployment ContractExecutive Demotion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Alberts

This case concerns an appeal from a Surrogate's Court decree admitting a will to probate. The decedent, at 94, willed her property to Jean Shambo, a former social service worker and nominated executrix. The decedent's brother and niece objected, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, citing discrepancies in property ownership and a safe deposit box. The jury found in favor of Shambo, determining the decedent possessed testamentary capacity and was not unduly influenced. The Appellate Division affirmed the decree, finding no grounds to overturn the jury's decision, particularly regarding the decedent's understanding of her property, which was deemed a proper jury question.

ProbateWill ContestTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSurrogate's CourtProperty DispositionExecutrix
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. 2014-06-0062
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2015

King, Cynthia v. Letica Corporation

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed an employee's interlocutory appeal as untimely. Cynthia King alleged work-related cumulative trauma, but her employer, Letica Corporation, denied benefits based on the treating physician's opinion that the condition was not work-related. The trial court upheld this denial, citing the employee's failure to rebut the statutory presumption. The employee's subsequent appeal was filed sixteen days after the trial court's order, exceeding the seven-business-day statutory limit for interlocutory appeals. Consequently, the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

timelinessinterlocutory appealworkers' compensationcumulative traumacarpal tunnel syndromemedical benefitstemporary disabilitycausationstatutory presumptionappeals board
References
3
Case No. 2014-04-0012
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Thompsen, Jason v. Concrete Solutions

This interlocutory appeal arises from a workers' compensation claim where Jason Thompsen, a concrete worker, sustained a fractured ankle. The employer, Concrete Solutions, disputed the claim, arguing Thompsen was an independent contractor. The trial court determined Thompsen was an employee entitled to medical benefits but not temporary disability benefits. On appeal, Concrete Solutions challenged the lack of an evidentiary hearing and the finding of an employer-employee relationship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that an evidentiary hearing was not mandatory for an interlocutory order and that sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that Thompsen was an employee under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, thus entitling him to necessary medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorAnkle FractureMedical BenefitsInterlocutory AppealEvidentiary HearingDue ProcessRight to ControlStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. NO. 03A01-9609-CV-00314
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

Gozenbach v. Gozenbach

The case involves Beth Ann Gonzenbach (Wife) and David Scott Gonzenbach (Husband) who were divorced in 1994, with a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) approved by the court. Wife subsequently petitioned for relief under Rule 60, alleging Husband concealed information about future bonus or incentive income. The trial court found that the husband misled the wife and set aside the final divorce decree. However, the Court of Appeals granted an interlocutory appeal, reviewing the evidence de novo. The appellate court found no clear and convincing evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the husband regarding his future compensation. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment setting aside the final decree and remanded the case for further proceedings.

DivorceMarital Dissolution AgreementRule 60 ReliefFraudulent ConcealmentAlimonyChild SupportIncentive CompensationBonus IncomeAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,438 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational